Malkiat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/633605
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-30-2008
Judge Surya Kant, J.
Reported in(2008)152PLR797
AppellantMalkiat Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Haryana and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- surya kant, j.1. the three writ petitioners who are sons of ram asra, are aggrieved at the order dated 3.3.2006 (annexure p-18) passed by respondents nos. 2 and 3 to the extent they have been denied allotment of one plot of 500 square yards or two plots of 250 square yards each under the oustees quota. the petitioners accordingly seek a direction to respondents nos. 2 and 3 for allotment of a one kanal plot or two plots of 250 square yards or even if those are not available, two plots of 8 marla each, in accordance with the policy decision taken by respondent no. 2 haryana urban development authority (in short 'huda').2. the undisputed facts are that the petitioners were joint owners of land measuring 40 kanlas and 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village railly, district panchkula. their land was acquired by the state government for urbanization/expansion of urban estate, panchkula by the huda.huda framed a policy known as oustees quota in terms whereof, residential plow are offered to the land owners whose land is acquired for the development of the urban area concerned.3. some of the salient features of the policy guidelines dated 10.9.1987 as modified subsequently on 18.3.1992 are as follows:1. plots to the outsee's would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under ownership of the oustee prior to the publication of the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land owners in that sector is acquired.2. oustee, whose land acquired is:(a) less than 500 sq.yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq.yard.(b) between 500 sq.yds. and one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq.yds.(c) from one acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yds or where 500 sq.yds plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plot of 250 sy. yds. each may be given.3. the policy will also be applicable in case there are a number of co-sharers of the land, which has been acquired. if the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. in case the acquired land of the co-shares is less than one acres, only one plot of 250 sq.yds. would be allotted in the joint names of co-sharers.(emphasis applied)4. the aforesaid policy was further modified on 12.03.1993 to the following effect:(i) benefit under oustees policy is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/commercial plots from huda in that urban estate. however, this restriction will not apply to those oustees who might have acquired property there otherwise.(ii) benefit under oustee policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the (sic).5. according to respondents nos. 2 and 3, land measuring 19 kanal 19 marlas owned by the petitioners, jointly, comprising khewat no. 50/51 of village railly was acquired though the petitioners claim that their entire land measuring 40 kanals 18 marlas has been acquired by the huda.be that as it may, it is the admitted case that in terms of the above reproduced policy decisions, a land owner like the petitioners whose more than one acre land has been acquired, is entitled for allotment of a plot of s00 square yards and if no such plot is available then two plots of 250 square yards each. undisputedly, the petitioner's more than one acre land was acquired.6. however, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner's claim for allotment of 500 square yards plot or two plots of 250 square yards each in lieu thereof squarely falls within their own policy guidelines, respondents nos. 2 and 3 have turned down the petitioner's claim and have offered only one plot of 8 marla to them, on the plea assigned in the impugned order dated 3.3.2006 which reads as follows:now the committee has considered the case and found that the petitioner's land x measuring 19 kanal and 19 marla was acquired comprising in khewat no. 50/51 of village railly and they were not co-sharers with their father. hence, as per policy they are entitled for one kanal plot. however, no plot of one kanal was floated in the year 2002 when all the three petitioners had applied for allotment of eight marla and six marla plots. it is also settled policy of huda that all the co-sharers are entitled for one plot only. in this case all the three petitioners are entitled for one plot only. as they had applied for six and eight marla plot separately, therefore, their case is considered for one plot measuring eight marla only.(emphasis applied)7. respondents nos. 2 and 3 have filed their written statement and above noticed facts are broadly not disputed. they have, however, reiterated that since each of the petitioner had applied for allotment of 8 marlas plot, only one plot of 8 marlas is liable to be allotted to them even if they are otherwise entitled for allotment of a bigger size of plot.8. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, i am of the considered view that e action of respondents nos. 2 and 3 in denying allotment of a 500 square yards plot or two plots of 250 square yards in lieu thereof to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary being inconsistent with huda's own policy decision and does not stand to the touch-stone of article 14 of the constitution of india as well. the matter in which the petitioners have been deprived of a bigger size of plot despite entitlement, smacks highhandedness and colourable exercise of power. if the plea taken by the huda authorities is taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioners wanted allotment of three plots of 8 marla each, namely, total 24 marla land, as against their entitlement of 500 square yards.9. however, according to huda policy, only one plot is to be jointly allotted to all the co-sharers. the respondent nos. 2 and 3, thus, cannot be permitted to rely upon a part of the policy by overlooking its other essential component which obligates them to allot (in such like case) one plot of 500 square yards or two plots of 250 square yards each in lieu thereof, unless the land owner refuses to such allotment and requests for a smaller plot.10. consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed and me impugned order dated 3.3.2006 (anhexure p-18) is set aside/modified to the extent that the petitioners are held entitled for allotment of one plot measuring 500 square i yards. however, and as provided under their policy, if respondents nos. 2 and 3 do not have any plot measuring 500 square yards, they are directed to allot two plots of 2501 square yards, each to the petitioners. still further, if no plots of 250 square yards are also available and as the petitioners have shown their willingness for the same, they be offered allotment of two plots of 8 marla each.11. subject to availability of two plots of 250 sq.yds, it is stated by learned counsel m respondents nos. 2 and 3 that one plot measuring 8 marlas is already reserved for the petitioners. that being so, let formal allotment of the said plot be made forthwith whereas the other plot of same size be allotted to them within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.no costs.
Judgment:

Surya Kant, J.

1. The three writ petitioners who are sons of Ram Asra, are aggrieved at the order dated 3.3.2006 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the extent they have been denied allotment of one plot of 500 square yards or two plots of 250 square yards each under the Oustees Quota. The petitioners accordingly seek a direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for allotment of a one kanal plot or two plots of 250 square yards or even if those are not available, two plots of 8 marla each, in accordance with the policy decision taken by respondent No. 2 Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short 'HUDA').

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were joint owners of land measuring 40 kanlas and 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Railly, District Panchkula. Their land was acquired by the State Government for urbanization/expansion of Urban Estate, Panchkula by the HUDA.

HUDA framed a policy known as Oustees Quota in terms whereof, residential plow are offered to the land owners whose land is acquired for the development of the urban area concerned.

3. Some of the salient features of the policy guidelines dated 10.9.1987 as modified subsequently on 18.3.1992 are as follows:

1. Plots to the outsee's would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under ownership of the Oustee prior to the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land owners in that sector is acquired.

2. Oustee, whose land acquired is:

(a) Less than 500 sq.yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq.yard.

(b) Between 500 sq.yds. and one Acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq.yds.

(c) From one acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yds or where 500 sq.yds plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plot of 250 sy. yds. each may be given.

3. The policy will also be applicable in case there are a number of co-sharers of the land, which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-shares is less than one acres, only one plot of 250 sq.yds. would be allotted in the joint names of co-sharers.

(Emphasis applied)

4. The aforesaid policy was further modified on 12.03.1993 to the following effect:

(i) Benefit under oustees policy is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/commercial plots from HUDA in that Urban Estate. However, this restriction will not apply to those oustees who might have acquired property there otherwise.

(ii) Benefit under oustee policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the (sic).

5. According to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, land measuring 19 kanal 19 marlas owned by the petitioners, jointly, comprising Khewat No. 50/51 of Village Railly was acquired though the petitioners claim that their entire land measuring 40 kanals 18 marlas has been acquired by the HUDA.

Be that as it may, it is the admitted case that in terms of the above reproduced policy decisions, a land owner like the petitioners whose more than one acre land has been acquired, is entitled for allotment of a plot of S00 square yards and if no such plot is available then two plots of 250 square yards each. Undisputedly, the petitioner's more than one acre land was acquired.

6. However, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner's claim for allotment of 500 Square yards plot or two plots of 250 square yards each in lieu thereof squarely falls within their own policy guidelines, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have turned down the petitioner's claim and have offered only one plot of 8 marla to them, on the plea assigned in the impugned order dated 3.3.2006 which reads as follows:

Now the committee has considered the case and found that the petitioner's land x measuring 19 kanal and 19 marla was acquired comprising in khewat No. 50/51 of village Railly and they were not co-sharers with their father. Hence, as per policy they are entitled for one kanal plot. However, no plot of one kanal was floated in the year 2002 when all the three petitioners had applied for allotment of eight marla and six marla plots. It is also settled policy of HUDA that all the co-sharers are entitled for one plot only. In this case all the three petitioners are entitled for one plot only. As they had applied for six and eight marla plot separately, therefore, their case is considered for one plot measuring eight marla only.

(Emphasis applied)

7. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their written statement and above noticed facts are broadly not disputed. They have, however, reiterated that since each of the petitioner had applied for allotment of 8 marlas plot, only one plot of 8 marlas is liable to be allotted to them even if they are otherwise entitled for allotment of a bigger size of plot.

8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that e action of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in denying allotment of a 500 square yards plot or two plots of 250 square yards in lieu thereof to the petitioners is wholly arbitrary being inconsistent with HUDA's own policy decision and does not stand to the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well. The matter in which the petitioners have been deprived of a bigger size of plot despite entitlement, smacks highhandedness and colourable exercise of power. If the plea taken by the HUDA authorities is taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioners wanted allotment of three plots of 8 marla each, namely, total 24 marla land, as against their entitlement of 500 square yards.

9. However, according to HUDA policy, only one plot is to be jointly allotted to all the co-sharers. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, thus, cannot be permitted to rely upon a part of the policy by overlooking its other essential component which obligates them to allot (in such like case) one plot of 500 square yards or two plots of 250 square yards each in lieu thereof, unless the land owner refuses to such allotment and requests for a smaller plot.

10. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed and me impugned order dated 3.3.2006 (Anhexure P-18) is set aside/modified to the extent that the petitioners are held entitled for allotment of one plot measuring 500 square I yards. However, and as provided under their policy, if respondents Nos. 2 and 3 do not have any plot measuring 500 square yards, they are directed to allot two plots of 2501 square yards, each to the petitioners. Still further, if no plots of 250 square yards are also available and as the petitioners have shown their willingness for the same, they be offered allotment of two plots of 8 marla each.

11. Subject to availability of two plots of 250 sq.yds, it is stated by learned Counsel m respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that one plot measuring 8 marlas is already reserved for the petitioners. That being so, let formal allotment of the said plot be made forthwith whereas the other plot of same size be allotted to them within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

No costs.